Advice: Raising Stakes & it Becoming 'About the Money'? (2 Viewers)

[upNdown]

You know, I would be careful about this too. If straddles are more than occasional, then it does effectively raise the stakes of the game and your player base may have a negative reaction to the host encouraging this.

100%
It’s funny, we had the conversation of straddle limits at my quarters game on Friday. I said “there’s no limit. If somebody wants to straddle $25 and somebody else wants that action, thats up to them and fine with me.” But that sort of policy is only good until it gets abused. We probably average a straddle every other orbit and a double straddle a handful of times per night. So it’s not a problem. But as a host, you have to keep watching, in case it becomes one.

 

[Marc Hedrick]

You know, I would be careful about this too. If straddles are more than occasional, then it does effectively raise the stakes of the game and your player base may have a negative reaction to the host encouraging this.

I think a "rock" as described is a good balance where it's one straddle every orbit or so. But again, you really want to keep players in the comfort zone for the game to thrive. And the awkward thing is, players don't understand where their comfort zone is until they have lost three buy ins in a night. If that makes them uncomfortable, they may not come back.

I agree. A mandatory straddle doubles (or quadruples, etc) the stakes of the game.

I am one of the few players in most games I play in who straddles (we only allow UTG straddle, then continuing from there til the button). If everyone does it, I think that's a sign that the stakes should be increased. If most players aren't straddling, then keep it as is.

 

[MrCatPants]

Most everything I would say has already been said. But I'm going to pile on anyway and add a few new things

1) My experience has been that if you double the stakes, you're going to lose half your core players over the next year. People are at that game for a reason. (I understand you're talking about only increasing one table.)

2) That's a lot of cash and/or electronic transactions - not sure how you expanded your game so quickly, but would be careful about how you vet players especially since a stake increase is going to significantly increase the amount of cash. A game with $10k-ish in cash is definitely something that draws the wrong kind of attention. And the loss levels can be the old "wife calls the cops on the illegal game when husband comes home down 2k and can't pay the rent".

3) Adding a rock and rotational bomb pots can help up the action without the issues above - that's what I did in my game and very happy with it.

4) I also added a quarterly game with higher stakes to sate my folks who want to turn my game into a card room. It's well attended, and one of the primary proponents has used that as an argument that it was time to raise the stakes overall. I've walked them through the player base to help them understand who we'd lose, and who we had a chance of losing if they went on a downswing at higher stakes, and they've become good with the quarterly.

5) Ultimately, if people want a casino/card room/underground game, they should go play in one of those.

 

[Taxi500]

Most everything I would say has already been said. But I'm going to pile on anyway and add a few new things

1) My experience has been that if you double the stakes, you're going to lose half your core players over the next year. People are at that game for a reason. (I understand you're talking about only increasing one table.)

2) That's a lot of cash and/or electronic transactions - not sure how you expanded your game so quickly, but would be careful about how you vet players especially since a stake increase is going to significantly increase the amount of cash. A game with $10k-ish in cash is definitely something that draws the wrong kind of attention. And the loss levels can be the old "wife calls the cops on the illegal game when husband comes home down 2k and can't pay the rent".

3) Adding a rock and rotational bomb pots can help up the action without the issues above - that's what I did in my game and very happy with it.

4) I also added a quarterly game with higher stakes to sate my folks who want to turn my game into a card room. It's well attended, and one of the primary proponents has used that as an argument that it was time to raise the stakes overall. I've walked them through the player base to help them understand who we'd lose, and who we had a chance of losing if they went on a downswing at higher stakes, and they've become good with the quarterly.

5) Ultimately, if people want a casino/card room/underground game, they should go play in one of those.

I like this and thanks for sharing your experience.

Doing "The Big Game" Quarterly may be a great way to add some excitement to the "usual" game we play. I definitely needs to add some 'spice' in the near future because after a year of the same thing a change can be refreshing.

 

[merkong]

We play a lower stakes game twice a week (.20/.20/$20 initial buy) and I’ve had a player leave the game because I wouldn’t raise the stakes.

We have several players who have been with us for months that came to us as complete noobs. We still pick up the occasional player new to the game.

I’ve always said that I’d rather have players leaving because the game isn’t big enough than leaving because it’s too big.

That’s where my game is at and I stand by it.

 

[DirtyTIVA]

I haven’t found the blinds to be too relevant. How deep you let your players buy in for is a more important factor. @TheRealTeddyKGB has a 0.25/0.50 game with a $50 cap. @quintooo has a 0.25/0.50 game with a $200 cap to start and match the stack later up to thousands. @Godzilla28 has a 1/1 that has had on occasion max $1000-2000 buy ins to start. While unnecessary for a lot of these games there are rules for mandatory straddle next hand for example.

 

[TheOffalo]

When playing with a rock, if you have the rock and go all-in, does the rock go into the pot? I assume so but not sure.

 

[MrCatPants]

When playing with a rock, if you have the rock and go all-in, does the rock go into the pot? I assume so but not sure.

I dont think so? If you felt and don't rebuy we would just toss it in the next pot.

 

[LeLe]

When playing with a rock, if you have the rock and go all-in, does the rock go into the pot? I assume so but not sure.

Rock still stay with the original person, it does not go into as part of the pot

 

[TheRealTeddyKGB]

I haven’t found the blinds to be too relevant. How deep you let your players buy in for is a more important factor.

Agreed. I've been alternating between $60 & $100max (both .25/.50) & the play is a bit different. The $60 is limited to $60max & plays pretty splashy (over $1500 on table last week 7-way) but the $100 you can match 1/2 BIG stack or $100 whichever is bigger & people tend to not get too crazy. This one I prefer but this week we're going $100 tournament so I'll have to wait until next week to get my new $1's in play...do you smell something burning @quintooo? Smells like the Bomb-omb is making an appearance!

 

[TheOffalo]

Rock still stay with the original person, it does not go into as part of the pot

But what if they bust out and don't reload?

I dont think so? If you felt and don't rebuy we would just toss it in the next pot.

Ah okay!

Thanks both, I may try this at our next live game!

Edit: Anyone know why it doesn't go in the pot when someone with the rock goes all in (and busts, and don't rebuy)? Just based on established convention?

 

[LeLe]

But what if they bust out and don't reload?

That part I am unsure as it only happen once for me, the table agreed and decided to pass it over to the person who felted the guy

 

[Machine]

So the rock is a mandatory straddle every hand, the straddle is ON for the person that just won the last hand, every hand, action starts to the left of the rock.

It doesn't matter if someone goes all in, the rock is already in the pot, and if they felt and bust, the rock is in the pot and goes to the winner.

@TheOffalo @LeLe @MrCatPants

 

[TheOffalo]

So the rock is a mandatory straddle every hand, the straddle is ON for the person that just won the last hand, every hand, action starts to the left of the rock.

It doesn't matter if someone goes all in, the rock is already in the pot, and if they felt and bust, the rock is in the pot and goes to the winner.

@TheOffalo @LeLe @MrCatPants

There seems to be an alternate way of playing with the rock where it’s only posted when the person holding the rock is UTG (or sometimes the Button).

 

[Machine]

There seems to be an alternate way of playing with the rock where it’s only posted when the person holding the rock is UTG (or sometimes the Button).

A very long time ago I played where you could put it in when you wanted to but had to be before the blinds, I thought it was odd but was fun.

 

[MrCatPants]

So the rock is a mandatory straddle every hand, the straddle is ON for the person that just won the last hand, every hand, action starts to the left of the rock.

It doesn't matter if someone goes all in, the rock is already in the pot, and if they felt and bust, the rock is in the pot and goes to the winner.

@TheOffalo @LeLe @MrCatPants

We just do it as a UTG straddle so it's not always in, but I am familiar with the style you are describing. I think there too the action skips the rock preflop and they are allowed to act last in the rotation?

 

[Machine]

We just do it as a UTG straddle so it's not always in, but I am familiar with the style you are describing. I think there too the action skips the rock preflop and they are allowed to act last in the rotation?

I was referencing the way it plays in the casinos, imo the dude just won the last pot, he doesn't need an advantage the next hand.

 

[MrCatPants]

I was referencing the way it plays in the casinos, imo the dude just won the last pot, he doesn't need an advantage the next hand.

That's our view too. And we don't allow straddles otherwise so it's an event about once an orbit the way we play it.

 

[Big Jilm]

I say don't raise the stakes at the cost of having fun and attendance. No players = no game. No fun = waste of time

 

[ThrowBack]

I’m no pro, but this seems like your aren’t going to get to play very much, if you do high stakes with two tables you are becoming a floor manager.

I would offer a high stakes night for more carefully selected players

 

[merkong]

I’m no pro, but this seems like your aren’t going to get to play very much, if you do high stakes with two tables you are becoming a floor manager.

I would offer a high stakes night for more carefully selected players

We plan all a bigger game for about every 6-8 weeks. There really is only a limited appetite for it right now in my group.

But you’re spot on.

 

[Rooster410]

I started hosting regularly during the pandemic .10/.20 blinds max $20 buy in. No problem getting a table of 10 (most noobs). After a year of regular bi-weekly games and everyone getting comfortable with the game, we made a huge jump to $1/$1 max $100 buy in which lasted about 2 months before my player pool started to dry up. Learned quickly and went to .25/.25 with a larger max buy in of $100 (most buy in still for $25 or $50). Player pool actually grew and been doing that for a year and it’s working well! Enough money on the table for everyone to take it seriously but still friendly. Average loss for the night it probably $100-$150 which most of my players feel comfortable enough losing.

 

[merkong]

We’re always leaning, tweaking. I think that’s the key.

 

[MrCatPants]

There are regular losers at all our games. Have to make sure the stakes stay manageable enough to where they don't quit. Shear, don't skin, or you'll murder your player pool.

 

[SendThatStack]

Don’t mess around adding a rock. Start with a higher game as a one off, or in a rotation. Every 3rd or 4th game is $1/1 $200 cap. See how it goes from there.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Multi-tables, multi-stakes. When one table breaks, the stakes go by default to the lower of the two.

Players that have been playing at the higher stakes will naturally bet larger. It introduces the low-stakes players to a "higher stakes" game without increasing their blinds. If the players from the higher stakes table just get folds every time they have a good hand, they will titrate their bets lower of get someone on the hook.

It's really a self-resolving problem.

As a side-note, I have run 3 table cash games. 5¢-10¢, 25¢-25¢, and 25¢-50¢. I was surprised at how many players prefer the higher stakes. Starting in 2022 I had also increased our tournament buy-in from $20 to $30, and lost nobody.

 

[allforcharity]

If the home games I play ever started becoming "about the money", then I'm out. I know how much money I'm comfortable potentially losing. I will have just as much fun with micro as I would with "regular" stakes. Those who need to grind for whatever purposes can do that at the casino or online just as easily.

 

[SendThatStack]

If the home games I play ever started becoming "about the money", then I'm out. I know how much money I'm comfortable potentially losing. I will have just as much fun with micro as I would with "regular" stakes. Those who need to grind for whatever purposes can do that at the casino or online just as easily.

That's not the case for everyone. A lot of people would have less funs at lower stakes than what they consider their "regular" stakes, and may not even show up. I like this Harry Truman quote on the topic:
"Poker among friends and colleagues should not drive anyone to the poorhouse but should be expensive enough to test skill and make it interesting."

 

[DirtyTIVA]

If the home games I play ever started becoming "about the money", then I'm out. I know how much money I'm comfortable potentially losing. I will have just as much fun with micro as I would with "regular" stakes. Those who need to grind for whatever purposes can do that at the casino or online just as easily.

Low stakes don’t suit my personal style of play. Calling all in for $20-100 isn’t the same as calling off $1000. The stack size and action are more important than the blinds though.

 

[DeeVee8]

Hi All,

Been running a fun, casual home game of .25/.50c for about a year now. Group has grown organically from me scrambling to find 6 players every two weeks to running two tables of ~8 regularly now. This was my goal at the start as it allows for MTT's and flexibility in stakes.

My thought was to transition my Table one into a higher stakes game while Table two remains at .25/.50. Likely 1/2 or maybe .50/1. However, I am nervous about the stakes, wins & losses becoming a bigger factor than the core reason I started doing this: fun, friends, and enjoying poker. Our Table one .25/.50 game has a $100 buy in and plays very splashy. We always end up with ~$1,200-1,500 on the table at current stakes.

I hate when guys get real tilted and genuinely angry about losing because, from my perspective, it changes the vibe at the table. Guy that wins feels a tinge of guilt and guy that losses may be on tilt rest of the game and people can tell. My fear is that by raising the stakes it will amplify negative emotions without adding to the experience.

Is this a valid concern? Do any of you have experience in a stake raise going 'wrong'? Or would running two tables at different stakes enhance the experience for all by providing an additional option? Thank you.

I wouldn't split tables. The smaller stakes table becomes the "kiddie" table and changes the vibe. Changing the vibe might lose players, and you've worked too hard to build that roster. Never underestimate how hard it is to build a roster.

Adding straddles, bomb pots and other stuff can make the game more interesting. If you need to feel it out, have a night designated as a higher stakes night.